On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/16/05, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
When you have 150 AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are uncontested junk.
"Uncontested" != "junk"
However it does mean that for five days no one who visted the article thought it was worth keeping
We just had an uncontested deletion of an article, and VFU was about to treat the application for undeletion with its usual feckless "the process was followed so keep deleted" idiocy.
Yes, people who think that an article *must* be deleted *should* be required to explain why.
Every single time.
You don't think the template namespace is has enough rubish in it already?
Why is this a problem?
If this professor Wolters really had been such an inconsequential fellow, the article should have been redirect to the article about his college. If he was more important but still not for an article of his own then the article could have been merged.
People move around
Why are we going around deleting articles like this?
Becuase aprently no one cares about them.
Why are people seriously suggesting that we're doing it in such numbers that nobody need even give a reason any more? That's utterly bonkers.
Time use of course it would be fairly trival to create with {{agree}} (argee with nominator) so if comments were really required it wouldn't do any good.
-- geni